If "Political science" is an oxymoron; "Party loyalty" is absurd.

'Hard Party loyalty' in a democracy is an absurdity. The division of politicians into a 'party' posture already divides the essence of democracy. The essence of democratic government is a government "of people", "by People" and "for People". By dividing into 'hard' Party postures, the welfare of all the 'People' becomes subordinate to a political ideology. Its may be acceptable to form 'soft' Party postures, where the welfare of 'all the People' is never subordinated to some fixated Party ideology. But, a 'hard' party ideology is actually harmful to government. How can 'shutting down' government be helpful? Its idiotic! Government is necessary. The problematic arises when human beings divide themselves into political Parties. This initial division into Parties already 'suggests' that some people consider themselves more important than other people. In a political organization that already 'smacks' of favoritism, division, and self serving points of view that will be installed, by that Party, into the structure of the existing government. That's what gives rise to 'Party politics'. That is already a bad place to start a real democracy( not just a verbal, lip service, abstract concept of a 'Peoples democracy') We've already said that Party loyalty can be harmful to democracy. How do we cure this harmful situation? Its ok to have differing views of what can be useful to a democracy, its another thing to stress the ideological posture to the point that it shuts down a government. Maybe, we could form a 'soft' form of ideology, from which we can better view the different viewpoints of the different Parties, so long as that difference translates into the 'welfare' of all the People at the Bottom of triadic government. We cannot have 'cut-throat' politics that actually harms the very People, who are the essence of the democratic spirit. It seems that politicians are too busy fighting for things, other than the "general Welfare" of the People".